ip_information

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'comprehensive IP information including geolocation' but does not detail what else is returned (e.g., ISP, organization) or any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes an example. Every part is useful, and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is mostly complete for a simple lookup tool with one parameter, but it omits details about the return format or fields included beyond geolocation. Given no output schema, adding a hint about the response structure would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only defines a required string parameter 'target' with 0% coverage. The description compensates by providing examples ('example.com', '1.1.1.1'), clarifying that both hostnames and IP addresses are acceptable inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get comprehensive IP information including geolocation', providing a specific verb and resource. Examples show usage with both hostnames and IPs, and the tool is clearly distinct from sibling tools that focus on domains or DNS.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like whois_info or dns_records. There are no context signals about prerequisites or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.